Ahhh… election season is here… the mainstay of our republic, the power of the people, the power of one. With the primaries finally behind us we can now scrutinize the candidates whom have decided to put their lives on the chopping block for all to see… some people will follow these candidates around hoping to touch the hem of a garment, some will follow them around hoping to get a morsel of truth to run home and blog about while still others are waiting for that moment where the candidate takes their shoe and places it firmly in their own mouth. In our 8th issue of Republic magazine we have asked our contributing writers to examine the candidates who have risen to the top of their parties to represent the people. We have asked our writers to balance their assigned candidate against our founding document and shine a light on their candidacy. Not only will you find the Presidential Candidates in this issue but we are shining a spotlight on other local, state and federal Candidates that adhere to a constitutional platform. Take a look and you will see there are many new Ron Pauls to choose from.

MICHAEL BADNARIK

It seems that some of the campaigns for the 2008 presidential election began before George W. Bush was sworn into office for a second term. We have been inundated for months with political double-speak, and many people will be glad when the election is over just so they can have some peace and quiet during prime-time television hours. Another reason that we’re weary of the political process is because most of us do not understand the Constitutional mechanism for electing our chief executive. The place to start, of course, would be Article II of the Constitution, specifically Section 1, clause 2 which says: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Note that state legislatures decide on the procedure, which means there are fifty ways to chose electors. The number of electors chosen is pretty straightforward. Using Texas as an example, the Lone Star state has 32 members in the House of Representatives, and 2 Senators. This means that Texas can select 34 electors, none of whom may hold elected office. Each political party hosts a state convention early in the election year. At these events, each party nominates potential electors from among the party faithful. This year’s process was more contentious for Republicans as thousands of Ron Paul supporters fought entrenched bureaucracies in an attempt to nominate electors who know the difference between Liberty and tyranny. As this article goes to print, each state has lists of people from each political party that may or may not become members of the Electoral College. (No, you cannot buy a university blazer, or visit the campus! At least one person has asked me if I graduated from the Electoral College.) The next step in the process is the November “election” – and I use that term fasciously. Fortunately it is outside the scope of this article to discuss electronic voting machines and the lack of integrity in the vote counting process. However, pretending for a moment that the results that will be reported actually represent the will of the people, one political party will claim more than 50% of the popular vote for their presidential candidate. That party’s nominees now become members of the electoral college. In spite of all the confetti and post-election “speachifying”, the popular vote does not determine who will be president for the next four years. That only happens when 535 members of the Electoral College cast their official ballots a few days before the presidential inauguration in January. Hypothetically, there is still a chance that a certain Congressman from Texas could be elected to the White House. The names – and addresses - of each state’s electors is a matter
www.republicmagazine.com

of public record. What if those electors were to receive numerous letters from within their state, passionately explaining that Liberty would best be served by voting their conscience, and not for the lesser evil ordained at their national convention? Theoretically the electors could vote – in complete secrecy – for someone that we liked! Theoretically, but not very likely, the people selected as electors tend to be more loyal to the party than to the cause of freedom. On the other hand, even a few electoral votes for the Champion of the Constitution would be a strong indicator that people are unhappy with the status quo. Given all the chicanery that goes on in the process, I am often asked why we don’t change the electoral process. The amendment process described in Article V would be the way to do that, however the question overlooks a much more serious problem: TREASON. Who cares HOW you elect a president when the people who have held that office since the beginning of the last century have been as rotten as two month old eggs? We have no time to worry about arranging deck chairs on our political Titanic. Our country is sinking into tyranny, and fast! Dennis Kucinich has initiated the impeachment process for George Bush, and support for his process has been growing steadily on the Internet. Kudos for Representative Kucinich for having the decency and integrity to do what is right in spite of hostile criticism from his own party. If you haven’t signed a petition supporting impeachment, I urge you to do so immediately. Don’t shrug and say that impeachment isn’t possible. There have been many battles (and at least one political nomination) that have been won because people refused to quit. Indicting Bush for violating his oath of office is a great start, but there are numerous members of Congress who should also be called before a judicial review board regarding their unethical behavior. Once again we face a more fundamental problem: public ignorance and apathy. Your average man or woman on the street has only recently become aware that something is wrong with the economy. As the cost of gasoline creeps steadily towards $5 per gallon, and the food prices begins to skyrocket, Americans are finally pulling their heads out of.... the sand. We must welcome these “Johnny-come-latelys” because we desperately need their help to put even a few violators of the Constitution behind bars. That is the only thing that will generate enough fear in our elected officials to make them adhere to their legitimate duties. As President Kennedy once said, “If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable”. At this stage, only time will tell if the freedom movement has enough momentum to change the system legislatively, or whether blood must once again be spilled to defend the cause of Liberty. I’m afraid we won’t have too long to wait for the answer.
Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

5

6

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

In January, 2007, Congressman Ron Paul announced that he was forming an exploratory committee to consider seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency, followed by an official decision in March of that year to enter the race. What began with an announcement video and a trip to New Hampshire soon exploded into a national phenomenon, setting one-day fundraising records, garnering over a million votes, changing the national debate, and inspiring untold numbers of Americans to become involved in a political process that had long seemed hopeless. The “Ron Paul Revolution,” a term coined by a supporter that came to identify the movement, took the election season by storm, fueled by grassroots activists excited by the prospect of voting and working for a candidate who sought the office not for the power it offered or the prestige it afforded, but for the sole purpose of returning the federal government to the limits set for it in the Constitution, protecting Americans’ God-given rights that have been under constant assault for over one hundred years. Dr. Paul’s campaign proclaimed a message of freedom, peace, and prosperity, and shocked many observers by out-lasting more well-known candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. The word “money-bomb” entered the political lexicon after supporters donated over $4 million on November 5th, 2007, and over $6 million on December 16th, the latter setting a fundraising record for the largest amount raised in a single day in U.S. presidential campaign history. On June 12, 2008, Dr. Paul formally ended his bid for the presidency and suspended his campaign, meaning that although he is no longer seeking the Republican nomination, he has not released his delegates to the Republican National Convention. Later in June, the next step in the Revolution began with the start of the Campaign for Liberty, of which Dr. Paul is currently the Honorary Chairman. CFL is an organization committed to promoting and defending the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity. Currently in the initial set-up stages, CFL will formally kick-off at the Rally for the Republic on September 2nd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This Rally will be the last in a three-day series of events, starting with the “Real Politics Training School” on Sunday, August 31st. At this School, CFL will be conducting expert training on how to organize and win precincts, districts, and states for the freedom message. The objective is to fully prepare and equip the attendees on how to take back our government, giving them the skills‚ strategies‚ and techniques necessary to be an effective activist.

On Monday, September 1st, there will be a Campaign for Liberty Leadership Summit to further train state activists, and Dr. Paul will be holding a book signing for his latest work, The Revolution: A Manifesto. That night, CFL will host a free concert featuring some of Dr. Paul’s most supportive musicians as a special thanks to all those who worked so hard during the presidential campaign. “The Ron Paul Nation Celebration” will feature Ron Paul Revolution musical favorites Aimee Allen‚ Mark Scibilia, Rick Ellis‚ and Rocky Lynne, and will be hosted by former MTV VJ Adam Curry. Finally, the September 2nd “Rally for the Republic” will be a banner moment for the freedom movement, featuring top conservative speakers and musicians. Hosted by political commentator Tucker Carlson, headlined by Dr. Paul, and including other top conservative speakers such as Barry Goldwater, Jr., former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Bruce Fein, and many others, the Rally for the Republic will call upon the Republican Party to come home to its historic values and will show them the path back to electoral success. A multimedia presentation introducing everyone to the Campaign for Liberty and presenting its long term goals will also be showcased during the Rally. Tickets are currently on sale for these September events, and you can visit www.rallyfortherepublic.com to purchase tickets, find information if you are interested in sponsoring the Rally, and get updates on speakers, musicians, lodging, and the schedule. The Campaign for Liberty is committed to leading the fight to restore our freedoms, protect our Constitution, and return this nation to its position as an inspiring example for the other nations of the world to emulate. CFL has released the following statement of principles to explain what it stands for and will champion: “Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny. But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talk about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq, but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none

of these sensible proposals are even on the table. This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation. The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage. With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country. We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known. We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decision-making and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913. We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution. We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American

people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of selfgovernment and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty. We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial. Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles. Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.” If you agree with this statement of principles and the goals of the Campaign for Liberty, we invite you to sign up as a member on our website and spread the word. Just go to www.campaignforliberty.com. CFL has set a goal to have 100,000 members by the Rally for the Republic on September 2nd, and as of the writing of this article, there are currently slightly under 76,000 signed up, with just a little over a month to go. The battle to take back our republic and restore our Constitution is going to be a long, arduous fight that will test our resolve and demand our unwavering commitment. Exciting days lie ahead for our movement and our message. There is still hope for America, and it is time for us to take personal responsibility and send a clear message that our movement is strong, united, and here to stay. The Ron Paul presidential campaign may be over, but the Revolution is only just beginning. We now take the next step, proud of what we have accomplished, confident of our message, and dedicated to the achievement of our goals and the restoration of the liberties we hold dear.

CFL Communications Director George Shepherd: Okay, let me jump into these questions here. First question. Many people are asking us about Ron Paul and his campaign for president. Could you give us an update on his bid for the white house?
www.republicmagazine.com

Jesse Benton: Well, his bid for the white house has come to an end for 2008. We suspended the presidential campaign on June 12th in Houston at the Republican Texas State Convention. Dr. Paul stayed in throughout all of the primaries and caucuses. He thought it was important to his supporters that had worked so hard for him to do that and thought it was very important to support everyone out there that was working hard to become delegates to the National Convention, and we have won, we believe, 218 delegates and alternates to the National Convention, so there is going to be a very positive, active freedom presence on the floor at the Republican National Convention and Dr. Paul is very likely to go and join them on the floor on Monday or Wednesday. We want to have a very active and positive presence there, talking to other Republicans about how we’ve lost our way, it’s time to get back to the principles of the Constitution, real limited government, sound money and a strong national defense that doesn’t police the world and protects our own borders here at home. That’s a tremendous accomplishment. I think, that we will be able to have that kind of presence at the convention. I think another really amazing thing is that Dr. Paul went from relative obscurity, you know, a strong following amongst folks like your readers and some other freedom lovers around the country, but was able to win over 1.2 million votes in what is really a pretty tough environment for a guy like Dr. Paul right now, and I think that’s a little bit of a sad commentary in the Republican Party that a real small government, constitutionalist belief in American freedom, believes in sound money, believes in really supporting the American dream — would have such a hard time in the Republican primaries and caucuses. But so many people worked so hard and did such an amazing job organizing that, again, Dr. Paul was able to be the second man — the second to last man standing, was able to win 1.2 million votes, and was really able to send a powerful message to the country that we really do need change. We need a revolu-

www.republicmagazine.com

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

9

tion back to our original revolution — back to 1776 — back to the founders’ vision for America. And then, finally, the presidential campaign, while it’s ended, the real campaign is just beginning. The real campaign is to take back our country and the presidential bid for 2008 was just the first step. The second step of the revolution is going to come through continued organization and action, and Dr. Paul is going to lead and encourage other people to step forward through his Campaign for Liberty. You can get more information at www.campaignforliberty.com. This is going to build on the grassroots organization that the campaign helped inspire and that so many people took part in across the country. So many of your readers took part, and we’ll work with you guys, and with some of the other great groups of people across the country to work hard in phase two of this revolution and really take back our country and take back our freedoms. Shepherd: We’ll go through Campaign for Liberty in just a minute. First, let’s address some questions our readers have that we get over the phone or through e-mails. Some people don’t quite understand the term “suspended.”They still want to vote for Dr. Paul and they want to know how they can support him, so could you define what “suspended” means and how that ties in to the actual elections?

Benton: “Suspended” means that we haven’t released our delegates and our alternates, and we do have, we believe, 218 of them, and that is going to allow us to have, again, a very positive, active presence on the floor at the Republican National Convention. We’re still encouraging all of our delegates to go and to stand there and to talk to other people and, in a positive respectful way, yet let everybody know that there’s a problem in our country right now. We are losing our freedoms. We need to get back to our Constitution. Suspended means that if there were something to happen — you know, if there were a death or something like a tremendous scandal or something like that, then the campaign could be revived, but right now McCain does have 1,300 plus bound delegates and the nomination is his unless he were to pass away or withdraw. You know, Mike Huckabee has only suspended his campaign; Governor Romney has only suspended his campaign; so it’s a pretty common thing. Also, it means that the presidential campaign as a corporate entity can stay open for a certain amount of time until we’ve paid all of our bills and made sure we have all the proper documents filed with FEC, and the FEC makes you jump through a lot of hoops. As a corporate entity, the PCC will stay open for probably two more quarters and pay bills and file reports. Shepherd: Most people feel somewhat polarized by— even abandoned by—the political system because of the Democrat and Republican parties being so against each other yet basically just the same two-headed beast, with same end-result. Since we have a lot of people asking, could you explain the reason why Congressman Paul decided not to run as an Independent? Benton: Well, there are two reasons. First of all, he’s tried that before, which I’ve tried a third-party run before, and he’s just seen how biased and how stacked against third party bids the system is. You spend half your money and two-thirds your time just getting on ballots. Second of all, when he decided to make a run at the Republican bid, he signed a pledge in at least 11 states that is legally binding that said he would not try to run third party or in another party this cycle if his bid failed, and so he couldn’t even be legally on the ballot in at least 11 states.Those two factors right there make a third-party bid impossible at this point. Shepherd: That’s a great explanation. Okay, talking about the Campaign for Liberty, in a nutshell, could you explain what it is and why everybody needs to get behind it?

Benton: The Campaign for Liberty is a political action group, 501(c)(4), with our non-profit status pending. It is going to have two functions. First of all, it’s going to continue to educate people. There are so many people that were turned on by the freedom message this year, and people who are finally starting to get the problems that our monetary policies are causing wars, and our foreign policy, and so we need to continue to spread that message. Second of all, it’s going to build on the precinct leader program that we put together in the PCC. The presidential campaign committee identified 22,000 precinct chairmen across the country that were organized and energized, and there are approximately 180,000 precincts in the United States which is the smallest level of political organization. So right now we’re organized at 22,000. If we could double that to 44,000, continue to organize — organize in perhaps 90,000 precincts across the country, we would have such an incredible political machine that we could organize and elect great candidates for office all over the place. People who really do support the Constitution, really do support our freedoms, really do support sound money, and — it’s this kind of organization that could really cause a political revolution and really take back the House of Representatives and take back the white house in 2012. Shepherd: So this is somewhat of a long term plan? Benton: Yeah, revolutions don’t just happen overnight. It’s going to take several years—well, if you really think about it, if we reached our goals it could be incredible. We could take back the House of Representatives, perhaps take back the white house, but you know this is going to happen in years, not months. That’s the kind of thing. It all depends on how hard we work and, quite frankly, perhaps how bad things get, but this is talking about years or a decade, not weeks or months. It’s going to take a lot of work and it’s going to take a lot of elbow grease. It’s going to take the people like your listeners, your leaders, who have been part of this for so long. I think people like them, people like us, have an extra responsibility because we understand — they understand and they are enlightened and they have an obligation to work hard and help move this process forward because we need to for ourselves and for our kids and for our country. Shepherd: How can supporters of the new Campaign for Liberty get active and take up the fight on a personal level, both long term and short term? Benton: Well, the first thing I would encourage them to do, obviously, for our group is to join us. Join us at campaignforliberty.com. We’re trying o sign up 100,000 people by September 2nd to launch our big event. Get involved with our precinct leader program. More plans and more programs will be coming from
www.republicmagazine.com

Campaign for Liberty and we’re going to launch that September 2nd in Minneapolis. I’d also encourage people to come join us in Minneapolis. We’re going to have this wonderful event at the Target Center. We are getting tremendous national media attention. A reporter told me yesterday from a paper of repute that if we fill that Target Center, we’re going to be the biggest story coming out of the Republican National Convention, not what they’re doing over there at the Excel Center with the party. Those are two things that people could do right away that would really be tremendous. You know, get involved with us, join us in September, and stay tuned. We’ll be sharing more information and more programs. Shepherd: How about on a long-term level? Benton: You know, on a long-term level, stay involved. Make sure that you continue to educate and talk to people. Dr. Paul’s book, The Revolution... A Manifesto is a great educational tool to share with people and be involved in your local political process. Politics really is all local and it’s about organizing on the local level. So get involved, become a precinct leader, and get involved in your local government. Shepherd: This actually ties into the rally itself. What was the original idea and intent for the Rally for the Republic and the goal of the rally, in conjunction — I should say concurrent with the Republican National Convention? What’s the ultimate goal? Benton: Well, Dr. Paul always said that we would have a presence in Minneapolis, and part of that presence is going to be on the floor with our delegates and alternates, and then we were planning a small rally up there to say thanks to people and spread the message— maybe we’d get a little bit of attention. So we originally booked what we thought was very optimistic - a 5,000 seat arena or venue, and we thought that was going to be real big. We got so much feedback from people out there across the country that, hey, 5,000 wasn’t going to be enough. We need to be bigger. So we looked at another venue that was going to hold about 10,000, and we still got reports that, wow, this thing could be really huge. This could be tremendous. We had a lot of media attention, it was on the front page of Drudge that Dr. Paul was planning on doing this, and we decided let’s throw down the gauntlet and do the biggest and the best thing we can possibly do, so we booked the Target Center which is where the Minnesota Timber Wolf plays—NBA basketball. It seats 15,000 people—well, 13,000 to 15,000, depending on how we set it up. We’ve already sold about 7,500 tickets, but we need to sell more. We’re going to have some great bands, some great entertainment, tremendous speakers, and we’re going to use this. We’re going to have a big national spotlight. Everybody is going to be paying
www.republicmagazine.com

attention. I already have RSVPs from over 70 national media outlets. We’re going to send a powerful message to the Republican Party and to the country that we want to take our party back; that if it’s not our party, we want to take our country back. We want our freedoms, we want sound money, we want to obey the Constitution. If the Republican Party wants to listen, we can use them as a vehicle and work with the Republican Party, through the Republican Party because many of us are Republicans—not all of us, but many of us—and if not, then we’ll look elsewhere. But that’s what it is. We’re telling the country and the Republicans, hey, we want sound money, we want limited government, we want our freedom. Shepherd: Has there been any talk about starting an alternate party? Benton: Not at this point. At this point we see the Republican Party—their traditions and their platforms are very much in line with what we’re saying and what we’ve always wanted to do. We think it would be a lot easier to bring the Republican Party back to its traditions and back to what it says and it stands for, than start an alternate party. If people won’t listen and if that proves an impossible task, then there are always other options. Shepherd: Excellent. If you can repeat again real quick where people can go on the web and/or by mail, how they can get involved, if they want to donate to the campaign or do you have a place where people can get travel arrangements to make it out to the event? Benton: Sure, you can join the Campaign for Liberty at www.campaignforliberty.com. Please join us. Through Campaign for Liberty, you can be linked to our rally site which is www.rallyfortherepublic.com. We’ve set up a transportation and ride board on the Rally for the Republic where you can network with other people and check out — there are a lot of people renting buses or vans, caravans, things like that. We also have a lodging tool up there. We’ve found a couple hundred hotel rooms that are still available for people to book, and also there are a lot of great supporters in Minneapolis that are opening up their homes, either for free or for very small compensation and allowing our people to stay there with them and in their homes and spare bedrooms. There is plenty of lodging and there’s plenty of transportation. One thing that’s been proven by this presidential campaign was that freedom lovers are really smart and they’re really inventive, and when

they get together they can do amazing things and solve problems in really an amazing fashion. Gary Franchi: I’ve got a quick question for you. Has Ron Paul decided to endorse any candidates that are out there currently? Benton: Not at this time. An endorsement is pretty unlikely of any candidate. He’s not going to endorse McCain unless McCain were to change some of his positions, particularly on foreign policy and that’s pretty unlikely, so you never want to say never in the political game, but an endorsement of McCain is extremely unlikely. Also, there are some other candidates — Congressman Barr and Dr. Baldwin that would be very interesting candidates and stand pretty close to Ron, but he’s not inclined to pick between the two of them for an endorsement. They are both friends, both do some good things, so at this point an endorsement is highly unlikely.You know, there always is potential during the fall, Dr. Paul could decide to endorse someone, so we could just stay tuned and see what might happen in the fall. Shepherd: Okay, one question for you, Jesse. Are you having any kind of televised coverage of this? Benton: C-SPAN said they’re going to be there to air the whole thing, and we’ve got interest from let’s see, CNN and MSNBC for live shots, and Nightline is going to be doing a feature exclusive on Dr. Paul from behind the scenes. That’s it as far as — sort of live TV. I mean, Nightline would air that night, I believe, so that’s not exactly live, but, you know, that’s 33 days out. To have that kind of coverage confirmed already I think is pretty exciting.

One look over Senator McCain’s voting record allowed me to see that on many them of their liberties. In comparison, our founding fathers understood it imperative critical and possibly controversial bills the Senator simply did not vote, allowing him to the very pursuit of happiness that our liberties be protected. For what is life withto side-step negative allegations concerning his voting record. On his website the out freedom? Senator McCain refused to vote either for or against the very controversial REAL ID funding (S Amdt 2405), an amendment to HR 2638: Department Senator declares, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful of Homeland Security Appropriations. This funding supports the REAL ID Act of change, we must engage the debate at a human level.” Yet on February 26, 2008, 2005 which is little more than a copy of the registration system used by Nazi Gerthe Senator declined to vote on a bill that would have amended the Indigenous Health Bill (S 1200) to prohibit the funding of abortions. In addition, on September many during World War II. Additionally, Senator McCain is a staunch supporter of the Patriot Act that gives the Federal Government sweeping powers undercutting 6, 2007, the Senator refused to vote on a bill that would have prohibited U. S. asthe civil liberties of all Americans drastically, and directly attacking states’ rights and sistance for groups that support coercive abortion. On the topic of stem cell research, it states on McCain’s website, “Where federal the Constitution, which the Senator has been sworn to protect. funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be “Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict war came.” Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. - Abraham Lincoln federal guidelines.”Yet in 2006-07 the Senator voted yes to the Stem Cell Research In speaking of our foreign conflicts I’d like to use Senator McCain’s own words Bill (HR 810-7/18/2006), the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 as reference: (S5-4/11/2007), and the HOPE Stem Cell Research Act “There’s no reason for the United States to remain. The American people want of 2007 (S30-4/11/2007). These bills encouraged and them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued called for stem cells to be taken from human embryos military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the for research as long as the person donating the cells did wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our imso voluntarily. Is this a clear ethical line refusing to mediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die sacrifice moral principles for the sake of scientific then I...say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exprogress? Apparently John McCain believes so. ercise their authority under the ConstituOf utmost importance, however, is the question: tion. For us to get into nation-building, what is Senator McCain’s stance on defending our civil liblaw and order, etc., I think, is a tragic erties and sacred Constitution? I was hoping to find a great and terrible mistake.” – In reference quote from the “issues” section on his website, stating that he to Somalia, John McCain., 1993. was a staunch defender of the Constitution and civil liberties; however, the words “civil” and “liberties” appear nowhere in said Of the prospect of war in Iraq, “I section or anywhere else on the website. I did find this: “The believe that success will be fairly most sacred responsibility vested in a president—the commander easy –“ John McCain., September in chief—is to ‘preserve and protect’ American citizens. John Mc24, 2002. “I believe that we Cain has the necessary vision and unrivaled experience to can win an overwhelming viccommand the United States armed forces and adapt tory in a very short period of our nation’s defenses to the demands of a changing and time –“ John McCain, Sepdangerous world.” Please allow me to follow this up tember 29, 2002. Of the with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, made in 1787 to ouster of Saddam and the M. L’Hommande, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” Seems to me they have a different understanding of their responsibilities. McCain feels the need to provide Americans their happiness through the defense of their lives by stripping John McCain has for years stated that what he says is the utter

truth, referring to his entourage as the “Straight Talk Express.” In researching this article, I found that to be far from the truth. Since running for the Republican nomination in 2000, it seems that the straight-talking Senator from Arizona has fallen to the wayside. In defending George W. Bush on several issues which greatly detract from our civil liberties, undermining the Constitution, and continuing to waffle on key issues, McCain has proven that he cannot be trusted to be our Commander-in-Chief: a title that, to me, means defender of the Constitution.
12
Republic Magazine • Issue 8 Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570 www.republicmagazine.com

Baathists: “There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators – “ John McCain, March 24, 2003. Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, “are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades? No, I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence.” – John McCain, March 18, 2004. “I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – “ John McCain, January 31, 2005. And at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire when questioned about the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, McCain interrupted, stating: “Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … –“ John McCain, January 3, 2008. “By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – “ John McCain, May 15, 2008. What’s happened? Why does the Senator constantly flip-flop on this issue. I would assume someone riding on the Straight Talk Express would stick to their guns. Indeed, the war issue is not the only issue the Senator has suddenly changed his mind on without warning or reason. On abortion: “In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” – John McCain, New Hampshire, 1999. “I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.” In an interview with Stephanopoulos, 2008 – John McCain. The list goes on. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to befriend the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.) McCain actively sought pastor John Hagee’s support, appearing on stage with him happily and praising his good works. Yet when the media uncovered that Hagee had made some extremely anti-semitic remarks and other very ignorant statements targeted toward, among others, homosexuals, Catholics, and the citizens of New

Orleans, McCain was quick to distance himself. McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he’s since reversed course. He said at the time, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” When the same bill came up for renewal, McCain, who was then in the running for the Republican nomination, voted yes. When asked why, he cited no reason for changing his mind. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support. McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation. McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, drafted by Senator McCain, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. After not holding up in court Tom Malinkowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, stated, “...Unfortunately, I think the government’s right; it’s a correct reading of the law...The law says you can’t torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can’t enforce that law in the courts.” McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag. And the list goes on... It just seems that the man has no true convictions, saying whatever is necessary to garner more support, money, and votes. It is worth mentioning that Senator McCain has been a member in good standing with the Counsel on Foreign Relations since 1997, and, if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that he has been active in an organization known as the “American Friends of Bilderberg.” To conclude, I’ve found that, although I was aware John McCain had changed much since his initial bid for the Republican nomination in 2000, I had no idea he had changed so drastically. Although I agree with him on a few issues now, it seems that you never know when he will change his mind, effectively reversing his position. And as John McCain himself said, “We cannot forever hide the truth about ourselves, from ourselves.” I cannot hide the truth about John McCain from myself in order to vote with my party in November for someone who seems so unsure about everything. I will close with the words of the Reverend Peter Marshall, who twice served as Chaplain to the U. S. Senate. In one of his famous prayers he stated, “Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for—because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything.”

“ “

There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators. I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– I believe that we can win... in a very short period of time... ...are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades? No, I don’t think decades, but I think years. Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.

”

By Norman J. Brookens, II

”

“ “ “

”

”

”
13

www.republicmagazine.com

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

“I have to say with all due respect that I see no evidence of this actually taking place. I think this has been something that has been ‘ginned up’ in certain blogs and the Internet. It was based partly on the fact that there’s this highway being built, uh, in Texas, that WILL facilitate more transportation and travel between Mexico, ah, and the INTERCONTINENTAL United States on up through Canada, and so people have perceived that this potentially means that somehow there’s gonna be this, uh, union like the European Union. There’s no evidence that that’s taking place. “Um, NAFTA helped to break down barriers of trade between those three countries, and I was opposed to NAFTA because I thought that it didn’t have the labor and the environmental standards and the safety standards that would look out for U.S. workers, but I don’t think that there’s some conspiracy to create uh, this One, uh, you know, Continental Government between Canada and Mexico. I, I see no evidence of that. All right? Okay.” Not okay. There is PLENTY of direct evidence of the ongoing surrender of our national sovereignty to supranational governing bodies, including the CFR, and it is plainly disingenuous for Obama to suggest otherwise. Still, he expects the electorate to believe that he knows NOTHING of the agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations as disclosed here by four different CFR officials: “For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.” “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.” (from “State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in a Globalized Era: In the Age of Globalization, States Should Give Up Some Sovereignty to World Bodies in Order to Protect Their Own Interests”— Richard Nathan Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course) “[The objective of the CFR is the] submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an allpowerful one-world government… this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership… In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First’.” (from Kissinger on the Couch) “Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.” (from Kissinger on the Couch —Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy) “The Council on Foreign Relations is an American branch of a society which originated in England...[and]...believes national boundaries should be eliminated and one-world rule established.” (from Tragedy and Hope — Carroll Quigley, CFR member and historian, mentor to Bill Clinton) “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure— -one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (from Memoirs — David Rockefeller, CFR Honorary Chairman The Council on Foreign Relations is “basically just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy”? Unfortunately for the rest of us, those people don’t merely talk. The Council on Foreign Relations is engaged in continuing, active subversion of the U.S. Constitution, through socialist-style incrementalism (3) as well as fascist-style “shock and awe” (4). Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years (5), but he is no constitutionalist.

14

Republic Magazine • Issue 8

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

www.republicmagazine.com

His voting record in the Senate (6) and his public statements evince arrogant disregard — if not outright contempt — for constitutional principles. Obama’s persona is the creation of the company he keeps. His campaign is funded by the major brokerage firms that control the unconstitutional, privately held Federal Reserve System (7). Although Obama has “spoken out” against tax breaks for large hedge fund firms (8), his portentous protests amount to grandstanding (9): “This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. We need to crack down on individuals and businesses that abuse our tax laws so that those who work hard and play by the rules aren’t disadvantaged.” Get it straight: under Obama’s “leadership” the IRS would “crack down” on individuals FIRST. The individuals who “abuse” those tax laws know better. They realize that those are in no way “our” tax laws; those are the laws of the central banks. Obama has NOT spoken out against the Federal Reserve System (10), the Internal Revenue Service that collects taxes on the Fed’s behalf (11), or the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report fraud at every level of government (12) (13) (14) that seeds the entire operation. Obama has not spoken out because he is a darling of the Fed/CFR/Trilateral Commission crowd (15). For example, In January of 2008, he received this ominous endorsement from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (16) (17), who is now advising Obama on economic policy: “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.” Obama’s mentor in foreign policy is David Rockefeller’s protege, Zbigniew Brzezinski (18) (19) (20). Brzezinski has admitted to helping to provoke the SovietAfghan war that killed a million people in Afghanistan in the 1980’s (21) (22). Brzezinski also supported China’s aid to Cambodia’s Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge regime (23). The Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of up to two million in Cambodia through execution and starvation in forced labor camps. Some other globalists who would figure prominently in Obama’s administration include current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former Deputy National Security Advisor/“preventive war” advocate James Steinberg, former Clinton Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright, former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry, 9/11 Whitewash Commission members Lee Hamilton (Co-Chair) and Representative Tim Roemer, and Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State and member of the Brookings Institution and the CFR (24). But it is not just Obama’s individual globalist associ-

ates that should concern constitutionalists. When he woos “special interests” like La Raza (25), he shows disrespect for the rights and well-being of native-born and naturalized American citizens (26). When he panders to groups like AIPAC (27), he pledges perpetual and unconditional support for Israel at America’s expense — and risk (28). As a Senator, Obama has voted anti-gun on the issues of concealed carry for citizens, banning common semi-automatic firearms, disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned, imposing one handgun a month restrictions, requiring trigger locks, protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits, nullifying the free speech rights of gun owners, restricting the interstate sales of firearms, and repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC (29). Obama has consistently supported infringements that are peremptorily prohibited by the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Italics added.) On the subject of the type of judge he would appoint to the Supreme Court if elected, Obama has stated that: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges (30).” Obama would therefore appoint judges whose sensitivities favor the interests of specific groups of Americans over the interests of all other individual Americans — judges who favor collectivism over individual sovereignty and entitlements over meritocracy. If you’re not a teenage mother, if you’re not poor, not African-American, not gay, not disabled, and not old, then your well-being would be less important under Obama’s rule. Those who would vote for Obama because HE is African-American, take note: Reverend Doctor Clenard H. Childress, Jr., who is also African-American, likens Barack Obama to eugenicist Margaret Sanger (31), and notes that Planned Parenthood — an organization with which Obama is associated — was involved with the “Negro Project” (32), whose aim it was to rid America of “human weeds,“ namely African-Americans! Edward Whelan asserts that Obama’s support of abortion rights stems from the Senator’s “interpreting” the Constitution as a “flexible” document rather than the “fixed and unwavering” but amendable one it was designed to be. “Although Obama has served in the Senate for barely three years, he has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators. Obama’s constitutional activism is particularly evident on the touchstone issue of Roe v. Wade. Obama calls abortion ‘one of the most

www.republicmagazine.com

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

15

OBAMA -VS- THE CONSTITUTION
fundamental rights we possess’ and promises to ‘make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president (33).’ “ In discussing his support for abortion rights, Obama’s focus is not on human rights, not on states’ rights, but exclusively on women’s rights. Obama claims that, if elected, he will institute universal health care (34). Devvy Kidd has observed that this is a promise he cannot keep (35): “(H)e cannot deliver because under Article II of the U.S. Constitution (36), he has no authority to simply set up any program that will get him votes. ALL bills of expenditure must originate in the House of Representatives, and health care is clearly NOT an area Congress has any authority to legislate. Just because [it has] in the past doesn’t make it legal, and the result has been the massive breakdown of what used to be the finest health care system in the world.” Another arbitrary “interpretation” of the Constitution allows Obama to “justify,“ even retroactively, the wiretapping of ordinary Americans’ telephones under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (37). According to Kurt Nimmo, FISA is a “concerted effort to kill the Fourth Amendment and usher in the snoop and control grid.” A constitutionalist would reject ALL legislation, including FISA, that could involve warrantless wiretaps or searches of ordinary American citizens. On the other hand, Obama contends in his book, The Audacity of Hope (p. 90), that the Constitution “can’t tell us the Founders’ specific views on the reasonableness of an NSA computer data-mining operation.” But there is no requirement for such specificity, because the Fourth Amendment already applies AS WRITTEN:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” On the same page, Obama rejects Justice Antonin Scalia’s strict constitutionalism in favor of Justice Stephen Breyer’s position that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” The seed of Obama’s bias may well have been planted during his participation years ago in an article published by the Harvard Law Review: “The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics,” which was authored by prominent legal scholar Laurence Tribe (38). Making a similar point to Edward Whelan’s (see above), Gary Shapiro wrote in the New York Sun that Tribe’s article “argues that constitutional jurisprudence should be updated in a similar way that Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, a view that would release judges from the original intent of the Founders of America.”Shapiro correctly dismisses Tribe’s analogy on the grounds that it is as faulty as it is bizarre. Representative Ron Paul of Texas has pointed out that Obama’s positions on constitutional issues actually vary little from those of John McCain (39). Speaking of Obama, McCain, and Hillary Clinton, Dr. Paul recently said that: “There really is no choice there, they all belong to the same group, they are beholden to the military industrial complex and the medical industry, the media industry, the whole works, the banking industry. The rhetoric is different but they’re all after power and there is not going to be a lot of difference.” Obama supposes that, as president, he would somehow have the authority to use $2 billion from the Treasury “to expand services to Iraqi refugees” (40). According to Obama’s official website, human suffering caused by unconstitutional wars of aggression, initiated by United Nations joint resolutions but NOT declared by Congress, ought to be palliated by increasing unconstitutional spending: “Humanitarian Initiative.” “Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis. Two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” The fact is that a sitting president has no right whatsoever to loot the Treasury in order to provide humanitarian aid to foreign countries. Once again — this time under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution — ALL bills related to expenditure must originate in the House of Representatives (41). Just a reminder about the Constitution, Senator Obama: you can’t bend it, you must amend it. For a list of the 41 links and resources referenced in this article, visit www.republicmagazine.com/obama.

GARY FRANCHI

RUN FOR OFFICE!
Clearly running for office will take longer than 60 seconds; however the amount of time it takes for your brain to process the decision to step forward is a nano-second. The process for running for office can be a long and lonely road, but the rewards are worth it. Before you make that decision, ask yourself: Am I running to change the country or am I running to be a Politician? Once you have answered that question you will know how to proceed. As I have been watching the process unfold while following around Candidate Alan Stevo, IL 10th Independent, I have been able to see first-hand the ups and downs of running for public office. That is why assembling your team of grassroots supporters and campaign staff is so critical. Choosing a good campaign manager and treasurer are key components to success. After you have filed your necessary paperwork and chosen your campaign staff it is time to collect the correct number of signatures to get on the ballot. There are entrenched hard-line party faithful who will stop at nothing to see that you do not appear on the ballot. Be aware of these bureaucrats who are more concerned with their party than their country. They are part of the machine we are

working to overturn and will not be friendly to your efforts. In some cases it may be necessary to chose a major party and get in under the radar rather than fight it out with the party faithful as an independent. But that is another choice you will have to make in this process. Recently in Washington DC while attending the Revolution March I asked Ron Paul what advice he would give a new candidate. He was very clear when he told me, “Know the issues, study the issues.” This should be a no-brainer however deciding your campaign platform is no easy task because there are many issues to tackle. Do you take the mainline divisive issues and make them your key talking points or do you make the real issues, the Federal Reserve, warrantless surveillance, and voting machines (for more issues see Republic Issue #7) your key platform? Personally I would hope you tackle the real issues but you’re the one running for office and you will have to choose. It is our republic and as Americans it is our duty to keep it. We can no longer let career politicians who are serving their party and special interests continue to run wild in DC. We must step up to the plate and play hardball or else we will surely lose the fight.
www.republicmagazine.com

16

Republic Magazine • Issue 8

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

a regular guy who believes that this is the greatest country in which to live but that we are starting to lose our way and need to return to our roots, doing what is best for every American. Frank is a native of the Los Angeles area, a man who earned an M.B.A. in Venture Management from the University of Southern California (1981) and has made a name for himself as a Chief Operating Officer, VP of Finance, and Acquisition Analyst, successfully helping a multitude of companies during his career. His work in the real estate industry is extensive: “I have been in the mortgage industry since the mid-80s and back then all the mortgages were 80% loans — the people had to have the money. I have since moved away from the mortgage business but have always kept up to date on the happenings of the industry and I was astonished that people were buying homes and doing everything wrong — no money down, low-floater loans and people who, simply put, could not afford to buy a home. Some may have been cheated, but primarily these people had no business being in the home buying market to begin with. Now that the home prices are coming down, the government wants to step in and that should not happen, let the market come down and correct itself.” In March of this year, The New American Independent Party (NAIP) announced Frank McEnulty, a self-described fiscal-conservative-moderate-libertarian, to lead their party as its Presidential nominee. NAIP Chairman Michael Thompson stated, “We eagerly welcome Frank McEnulty to the New American Independent Party along with a pragmatic approach to the critical issues facing America today.” NAIP is described on their website as

The new American Independent party candidate for the 2008 presidency sat down with me last week to discuss his approach to the issues.
B Y J O S E P H M A E L
There is a growing interest in the New American Independent Party’s first ever nominee for president of the United States of America. Frank McEnulty is quick to point out he is just an ordinary guy who wants voters to remember America’s oldest saying, “Anything is possible in America.”
McEnulty was selected by his party from a large pool of independents, relying on his straight-talk about the issues and disdain for partisan politics. “I’m just a regular middle class guy. I have worked my entire life and am not a career politician. But what I see is that we continue to get worse and worse candidates shoved down our throats. I have two teenaged daughters and I have to stop and ask what kind of country we are going to leave for them. It’s come down to the Republicans coming out sounding like the Democrats, with only a slightly different attitude. I’m going to do something, and give them hope they can make a difference. People are voting for who can do the least amount of damage, and that will not make this a better a country. Voters are supposed to elect the person who can achieve the greatest amount of good. What people want from our politicians is to not spend money we don’t have, and stay out of our lives. I have been registered an Independent for 10 years. The New American Independent party found me. Their platform and mine fit well together.” If you are wondering who Frank McEnulty is, so was I, and when I entered his posh campaign headquarters overlooking the beaches of Malibu, California, he was inviting and assuring of his positions. He is
www.republicmagazine.com

Frank McEnulty
an alternative grassroots political party seeking sustainable solutions and a more self-reliant America. As a former Republican, McEnulty has this to say about the GOP: “We [America] have become the 900-pound gorilla, throwing our weight around as the top major military power [in the world]. Afghanistan was a “good” war in the sense we had the support of the people behind it. Iran can’t be considered a so-called “good” war, though with all the apparent so-called evidence behind it to begin with I wonder how much of that was merely made up just to make the Republicans look good.”The 2002 Iraq war resolution transferred the authority and responsibility for waging war from the legislature to the executive branch, which is a breach of the principles of the U.S. Constitution and yet another display of how current partisan politics has worked against the needs and wants of the people of America. In regards to post 9/11 counter-terrorism legislation, McEnulty is enthusiastic about protecting American civil liberties. He states: “In some ways the Patriot Act is the scariest thing to happen to the civil liberties of the American People since the founding of our country. Not all provisions of the Act are bad, but I think it was cobbled together too quickly and may be far too overreaching in the long run. I would immediately call for a non-partisan review of all the provisions of the Patriot Act to see what should be adjusted, what should be left the same and what should be removed from our laws. I would also pledge to live by the recommendations of that review.” McEnulty’s stand against partisan politics runs deep, and his positions reflect upon how the Republicans in the current administration have bungled issues of the economy, military and natural disasters. Quoting McEnulty, “I can compare Louisiana to the disaster in Mississippi.You never heard of Mississippi getting torn up by the hurricane. But the southern part of Mississippi, along the gulf, was destroyed by a tidal wave. Not just wet, but completely annihilated by a tidal wave. This event, [while just as much a tragedy as what happened in Louisiana] was not nearly as much a news story. What you
Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570 Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

17

Frank McEnulty
saw happening was Mississippi found out what was needed and got to fixing the mess, while in Louisiana the governor hated the mayor, the mayor hated the governor and they both hated the president. It was no coincidence the governor of Mississippi [Governor Haley Barbour] was a Republican. Nothing gets fixed in the middle of a blame game. And this is yet another example how partisan politics works.”

What About the Issue of Immigration?
Mr. McEnulty outlines his approach to the ongoing problem of illegal immigration in some detail: “The only amendment I would consider making to the Constitution would be to eliminate immigrant birthrights. It is clear many immigrants are coming here and

having anchor babies and the ultimate costs to Americans is prohibitively high. It’s not saying ‘We don’t want you,’ it should be sending the message that there is a process. That said I would strictly enforce our laws against employers that hire illegal aliens. If you remove the demand for illegal alien labor, then you remove the incentive for those people to come to this country.The problem of illegal immigration actually has a very simple solution. Start enforcing the penalties against the hiring of illegal immigrants and you will remove the major attraction that draws people to this country illegally – jobs. Without jobs and the prospect of a much better life the vast majority of people will stay home.” McEnulty’s plan for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration is detailed as follows: 1 - All people in the country illegally would have to register as a foreign guestworker within 90 days in order to ever obtain citizenship or even achieve permanent status. There would be no exceptions to this policy. If you don’t register within 90 days, you are in a separate class, face a much harder road to move forward towards legal working status and citizenship and probably will be deported. 2 - In addition to having to register, all illegal aliens would have to open bank accounts and obtain legal, taxable jobs if they hope to ever obtain citizenship or permanent status. Household employees would need their employers to start paying taxes on them, gardeners would have to start recording their income like real businessmen and everyone would get back on a level playing field. No legal, tax-paying job and you get to go back home. 3 - In order to obtain citizenship, a process that I envision taking at least 3 years and up to 10 years depending on how long the individual can prove they have been in the country the above qualifications will have to be met.

All we have is politicians, we need more statesmen
Environmentally he comes across a little more as a progressive.“I feel the higher prices [of foreign oil] will inevitably result in fuel efficiency in all aspects in which it is used.The most appalling comment I’ve heard Obama make in his entire campaign was when he responded to McCain’s suggestion to begin offshore oil drilling. Basically, he said that won’t do anything to help fuel costs for at least five years. What if we had started drilling 20 years ago? It is the short sighted thinking of these guys in congress that is causing the problem.” Environmentalists claim greenhouse gases are responsible for a generous portion of global warming, and like every candidate, this topic remains highly relevant to popular support. McEnulty offers suggestions to helping move America past the looming problems in a pragmatic manner. “Approximately 50% of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States is the result of the production of electricity and it is probably just as high or higher in other parts of the world. If there is something good to come from the science on global warming is that it makes us as a country think. Every country does something well, and one of the things France does well is produce nuclear power.They produce upwards of 70-80 percent of their electric power through safe sodium nuclear reactors that can’t even go critical and produce no greenhouse gas. What about the waste? There are places like those in Yucca Valley [in Nevada], but no statesman is willing to stand up and claim this method. They say it may not be safe for 10,000 years, but if we can’t develop a way to make nuclear waste safe in 1,000 years, we are doomed anyway. Without statesmen to promote faith in our future, partisan politicians will continue to suit their own political needs and not do what is right for America.”

I believe
Frank McEnulty briefly recaps his stand on the issues: • I believe we pay enough in taxes and need to better manage our money and simplify the tax system. • I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives. • I believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform based on strict enforcement of the immigration laws currently in place. • I believe the United States should not try to be the world’s savior, but has a moral obligation to “help” where and when it can do so at the request of the local people. • I believe in God, family and country and that they belong together.
www.republicmagazine.com

RonPaulCommunications.com
18
Republic Magazine • Issue 8

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

• I believe that the President of the United States should put America—not his or her political party—first. The President is an American before a Republican or Democrat. • I believe that our military should never be used for political purposes, political gain or to advance an agenda. • I believe that all people are created equal and that all people should be able to be equal in all things. • I believe in a strong separation between the branches of the federal government and in strong state’s rights. • I believe that judges should be judges and leave the passing and changing of laws to the politicians we have elected to do those jobs. • I believe that people are truly entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that no one is entitled to much beyond that unless they work to earn it themselves. • I believe that political correctness is a real threat to open and honest dialogue. • I believe ‘Anything is Possible in America’ and if we all work together for the common good it will continue to be that way. • I am encouraged every day by the people I hear from that tell me I am on the right track and I strongly believe that if everyone continues to help me get the word out we can and will make a difference in the next election. • A lot of the political talking-heads claim that the final Presidential candidates may be people that aren’t even on the national consciousness just yet. With continued effort and your help, there’s a good chance they will be talking about my campaign in the next year on the major news outlets. When asked about his decision-making process, Frank McEnulty enthusiastically responds by saying, “Every decision that I will make as President of the United States will be based on three very simple questions: Is it good for America? Is this federal law really necessary? Is this a proper use of the citizen’s tax money?” Frank McEnulty believes what he says and wants to get America back on the path to being what this country is all about, which is as he puts it“being the best place for everyone to live, work and play - not just a special place for special groups.” When asked what figure in history stands out among the others, McEnulty lists Ronald Reagan as his most admired. “Ronald Reagan, because he told us what he wanted to do as President and then set about getting it done.”The feeling of change is in the air for these elections, and so is the need for unity in America. Perhaps it is suiting to end with a quote Reagan gave at his fourth State of the Union Speech in 1985: “The oldest American saying is new again: Anything is possible in America if we have the faith, the will, and the heart. History is asking us once again to be a force for good in the world. Let us begin in unity, with justice, and love.” For more information on Frank McEnulty, visit his website: www.frankforpresident.org –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Joseph Mael is a writer from Los Angeles, California. He writes for several online publications, including his own website www.dailymael.com

www.republicmagazine.com

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

Issue 8 • Republic Magazine

19

only utilizing a powerful website, but with well circulated updates on his experiences on the electoral path. But now with recent polls showing Obama and McCain much closer than anticipated, the question remains: Will Nader’s growing popularity nationwide force him to play the role of spoiler as he did in the two prior elections? Has the righteousness of his mission gotten the best of him? It appears not. While he admits to being a long-shot to win, his modest goal of reaching 5% of the total votes in November has been exceeded in the recent polls where he is drawing 6% for a nationwide vote so the early signs are good for the candidate who describes his campaign as a “tugboat” for candidates from the major parties to be swayed in their views. He has attacked both McCain and Obama for being “corporate candidates” and with Obama recently swaying his views toward a pro-NAFTA inclination; Nader has been particularly stoical toward the Democrat. “The old Obama said that he thought NAFTA was a “big mistake.” The new Obama isn’t so sure.” From free trade to flavored cigarette regulation, Nader is on top of every issue on the board. Perhaps he still serves as more of the checks and balances or quality control manager of the new millennium for the two major parties, but his voice is being heard now more than ever despite obvious blackouts against independent candidates in 2008 from major media outlets. The untimely passing of Tim Russert might have the largest impact on Ralph Nader’s campaign. Nader, who announced he is running in February on Tim Russert’s Meet The Press, has been serving in Washington for over 40 years and commands the attention of the voters by his open discussions on matters that are directly impacting the way Americans live. Russert was a big name who wasn’t afraid to bring out the best of Nader by using his brand of “intellectual tension” to a mainstream audience. Russert: But would you prefer, as an American citizen, to have Barack Obama or John McCain as president? Nader: What I prefer as an American citizen? Russert: Yes. Nader: You’re asking me? I’m running for president, for heaven’s sake! Russert: But as a citizen? Nader: I would prefer that the American people organize; that whoever is president, they give that person backbone.
* Source: Meet the Press: 2008 “Meet the Candidates” series Feb 24, 2008

he controversial independent candidate for president, consumer advocate and environmentalist Ralph Nader has been creating a stir, again. He is running for office for the fourth consecutive election and this time around he appears to be showing a more aggressive yet matured approach to being heard by the masses in America. Peering back at his 2004 stands on the issues, it’s pretty easy to see not a whole lot has changed for Nader and his campaign as he continues his crusade against “various injustices, fighting for the necessities, and working towards the redirections.” The one thing that has changed is his assertiveness, “Such a short historical context should give my supporters and viewers an even greater sense of urgency to stop the corporate interests and the corporate government’s autocratic control — and the resulting deterioration — of our society and country.” Nader was born in Connecticut in 1934, and if he was to be elected at age 74, he would be the oldest president in history. When approached about his age, he uses the wise quote: “The only true aging is the erosion of one’s ideals.”Nader runs a fairly progressive platform by having a successful online presence not

Unsafe at Any Speed, written in 1965, put Nader on the map as a prolific writer. Exposing the poor safety standards of the auto industry propelled Nader to the forefront as a consumer activist as well as a renowned writer. He is said to read upwards of 10 books a week and has a net worth of about $4 million. Some of his finest writing outlines the way he supports his stand on issues. The following details some of his campaign’s missions: Maintain Commitment to Affirmative Action • A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant. The federal government should maintain its commitment to affirmative action — even though such arrangements may violate the rules of the World Trade Organization binding on the US. We believe the WTO’s powers to be unconstitutional. The Justice Department should intervene to oppose judicial rulings against affirmative action in higher education and other spheres. Agriculture • We must advance the production, marketing, use and disposal of food and fiber in accordance with consumer, environmental, worker and family farm standards of justice and sustainability. Additionally, we must challenge misallocation of resources caused by the growing concentration and wealth by agribusiness, chemical, biotechnology and financial corporations over the food and fiber economy. Nader’s comprehensive vision of the agriculture industry includes well-written articles on the following topics: A Family Farm: Consumer Agricultural Policy Aquaculture Department of Agriculture Devolves into the Agribusiness Industry Department Food Safety Genetically Engineered Crops Mad Cow Disease rBGH/Hormones
www.republicmagazine.com

Sewage Sludge Organic and Beyond Hemp: A Plant that is Consistent with a Sustainable Future. Nader has been particularly outspoken about the use of hemp in American as a renewable resource that can be used for fuel, paper, food, fiber and more. “Grown in rotation, industrial hemp increases the yields of future crops grown on the same field. Because it is weed resistant, hemp production is less reliant on herbicides, and because it is naturally bright, paper made from hemp requires no chlorine bleach, which produces environmental toxins, in addition to its rail transportation risks.” Civil Liberties • Ralph Nader has written extensively about his positions on civil liberties in America. His campaign states: “Mr. Nader seeks to expand civil liberties to protect basic human rights in employment regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.” Nader has been a long time supporter of “impenetrable protection of privacy.” Climate Change • The Nader campaign believes it is time to break our addiction to fossil fuels. The evidence of global warming is mounting. He favors wind and solar energy over nuclear. “We threaten the global environment with our continued use of fossil fuels. Not only is this an ecological threat, it is a tremendous economic threat, facing all of humanity. Global warming will bankrupt the re-insurance industry, spread infectious tropical diseases, cause massive ecological disruption, and increased severe and unpredictable weather, all of which will significantly impact commerce, agriculture, and communities across America and throughout the world.” Corporate Crime • In order to crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse, Nader proposes reforms to provide resources “to prosecute and convict the corporate executive crooks and to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power; pay back ill-gotten gains; rein in executive pay; and enact corporate sunshine laws, among others.” Education for Everyone • Nader is for investing in K12 education which will reduce poverty and abandon standardized testing, while shifting the focus on civic skills. “Education is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. The federal government has a critical supporting role to play in ensuring that all children — irrespective of the income of their parents, or their race — are provided with rich learning environments, equal educational opportunities, and upgraded and repaired school buildings.” Energy Policy • “We urge a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests — an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses, one that breaks our addiction to oil, coal and
www.republicmagazine.com

atomic power. A new clean energy paradigm means cians Assistants; and the National Association of Midmore jobs, more efficiency, greater security, environ- wives, among others. mental protection and increased health.” Media Bias • So what does Nader want to do to help Environmental Policy • Nader first ran in 1996 as a the media blackouts as well as providing the people with Green Party candidate. His environmental objectives diverse news sources? “The mass media in the United States is extremely are stringent, and his track record has made an impact. He was instrumental in establishing the EPA, CAA and concentrated, and the messages that they send are too CWA, and opposes nuclear energy, opposes expanded broadly uniform. Six global corporations control more domestic oil drilling, and opposes the use of coal energy. than half of all mass media in our country: newspapers, “The epidemic of silent environmental violence contin- magazines, books, radio and television. Our democracy ues. Whether it is the 65,000 Americans who die every is being swamped by the confluence of money, politics year from air pollution, or the 80,000 estimated annual and concentrated media. We must reclaim our democfatalities from hospital malpractice, or the 100,000 racy from the accelerating grip of big-money politics and Americans whose demise comes from occupational concentrated corporate media. This requires real camtoxic exposures, or the cruel environmental racism paign finance reform, which means public financing of where the poor and their often asthmatic children live in public elections; some free access to ballot-qualified pollution sinks located near toxic hot spots, preventable, candidates on television and radio; vigorous antitrust regulation and enforcement; ending broadcasters’ free harmful, situations abound.” licensed use of the public airwaves; and the reversion of Fair Tax • “Corporate tax contributions as a percent some organized time on our publicly owned airwaves to of the overall federal revenue stream have been declinestablish audience-controlled radio and TV networks to ing for fifty years and now stand at 7.4% despite masensure the diversity of voices and solutions necessary sive record profits. A fundamental reappraisal of our tax for a really free press and a true civic democracy.” laws should start with a principle that taxes should apply first to behavior and conditions we favor least and pinch Reclaiming Democracy • In order to reclaim democbasic necessities least, such as the clearly addictive in- racy in America, Nader proposes 10 steps to ensure this dustries (alcohol and tobacco), pollution, speculation, happens. He has written in depth about how to carry gambling, extreme luxuries, instead of taxing work or out these proposals: instead of the 5% to 7% sales tax on food, furniture, • Facilitate voter initiatives. • Reform our corrupt campaign finance system. clothing or books.” • Set term limits for Members of Congress. Federal Budget • Nader is for a federal budget that • Expand citizen standing rights. puts human needs before corporate greed and militarism. • Regain control over “taxpayer assets.” “Half of federal budget is now military spending…the • Reclaim the public airwaves. wasteful and redundant defense department budget • Create shareholder democracy. needs to be cut.” Nader lists infrastructure, poverty and • Establish a new model of consumer representation. preventative health issues as top priorities as these would • Protect victims’ rights. be a long-run aids to the economy. And while Bush in• Ensure a hospitable environment for whistle blowing. herited a $236 billion surplus, the next president will inherit a deficit likely to top $400 billion. Nader’s focus is Onward • In order for Nader to make a bigger splash to rebuild economic foundation and return the country’s with his campaign it is going to take more dedication deficit to a surplus to help rebuild the country. than ever to raise the money required to spend on publicity. He has a goal of reaching $10 million (he reached Health Care for All • The state of health care in the $4 million as an independent in 2004) but, to date, he is United States is a disgrace. For millions of Americans it still under $200,000. Nader is a brave soldier fighting a is a struggle between life, health and money. The Nader never ending battle of big versus small, as his majoritarCampaign supports a single-payer health care plan that ian platform takes on the corporate-sponsored Demoreplaces for-profit, investor-owned health care and recratic and Republican party candidates. moves the private health insurance industry (full Medicare for all). This approach is supported by Physi- For more information on Ralph Nader, please cians for a National Health Program (PNHP); the visit: votenader.org American Nurses Association; the U.S. Labor Party; ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– the California Nurses Association; the National Asso- Joseph Mael is a writer from Los Angeles, his website is: ciation of Social Workers; the Associations of Physi- dailymael.com

no time the creation our nation have we further from the founding Atprinciplessincefor this great ofbranches ofconcept ofbeenand self government,ofseplaid nation. The limited aration of powers between the government, the supremacy the state and citizens over the federal government seems to have been lost. The next president of the United States will determine whether we continue down the path to certain destruction of liberty and self determination or a return toward smaller government and increased liberty — we cannot have both. As government grows, liberty is diminished because government rules by force; and the more power it takes, the more force is applied until only compliance to the will of the rulers remains. When making the decision of who to vote for this November, weigh the facts based on freedom and responsibility. Some will tell you that casting a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote or a vote for the opposition. This is more often said by someone who is willing to stand up for evil. They may also use the phrase “voting for the lesser of two evils.” In my opinion, voting for the lesser of the two evils is still a vote for evil. We should vote our conscience based on fact and rational thought, not just to be on the winning side—we want to be on the side of what is right. With these thoughts in mind I would like to present the positions of Candidate Chuck Baldwin for your consideration. (Wherever possible, I have tried to use the candidates own words.) Illegal Immigration and Border Security: • “I support construction of a fence to secure our borders, but a Baldwin Administration will not wait for the construction of a fence in order to seal and secure our borders. We will utilize whatever force is necessary, including regular military personnel, to effectively secure our borders immediately.” • “Employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” • “As President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. • “There will be no “path to citizenship” given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. • “I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no “anchor babies.” • I will “support our U.S. Border Patrol, not with meaningless words, but with action.” • “The day before my inauguration as President will be the last day that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Campean will have to spend in prison.”

Iraq War: • “I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War.” • “…the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary… President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates,” which would have given “the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. • “When I become President, empire building and playing policeman of the world will come to an immediate halt and the United States of America will once again begin conducting itself as the Republic it was meant to be.” The Patriot Act: • “I would repeal it.” Baldwin went on to state that he believed, as did Benjamin Franklin, that those willing to give up liberty for security will have neither. The Second Amendment: • “The Second Amendment protects our liberty to help keep your family safe and your country free. Go buy a gun.” • “The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied. Therefore, a Baldwin Administration will uphold the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms and will oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and, further, will stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.” • “Judge Roy Moore, recently noted that ‘Our ancestors firmly believed in God-given ‘unalienable rights’ and had no reservation about using guns, when necessary, to defend those rights against tyrannical oppression. Before there was a Constitution, our guns guaranteed the rights God had already given us, including the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written and designed to protect, not preclude, those very rights.’ • “In conclusion I would again quote Judge Moore, who wrote, ‘Liberty and freedom are gifts of God, and not the government. The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the “arms” of the people.’”

• “Countless assaults against the right of the people to keep and bear arms by both Republicans and Democrats over the years have taken a toll through draconian gun laws and oppressive legislation which has slowly and steadily chipped away at Americans’ vital, God-given right to self-defense.” Abortion: • “I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a ‘person’ under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law.” • “Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.” Unconstitutional Governmental Departments: • “If I become president of these United States we will see to it that the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and several other departments will be eviscerated. They’re history!” Oil Reserves: • “…We will untap the vast reserves that reside under the soil of Alaska. We have more oil under Alaska than in Saudi Arabia, We do not need OPEC.” • “We will drill Alaskan oil, we will drill for the oil in the Dakotas, we will drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.” Law Enforcement: • “Law enforcement is, for the most part, the property of the states and local communities and that’s where law enforcement belongs, not in Washington, DC.” • “No longer will we allow the FBI or the BLM or any of those alphabet police agencies from Washington, DC to bully and dictate to local and state police agencies.” Health Care: • “I strongly support the freedom of choice of practitioner and treatment for all citizens for their health care.” • His web site states: “Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment. Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators.” • His web site goes on to say: “The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. I, therefore, support the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much

of the rest of the civilized world.” United Nations and world courts: • “The United Nations will have to find a new address when I am President of these United States. All funding for the United Nations stops!” • “I strongly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court.” • “As President I will terminate United States membership in the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations. I would bar the United Nations and its subsidiaries from further operation, including the raising of finds, on United States territory.” • “American troops must serve only under American commanders; and as long as I am President, American forces will never serve under the flag of the United Nations or any foreign country.” Taxation: • “When I become President, I will work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax.” • “I would also repeal the “death tax,” inheritance taxes, and property taxes.” • “We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system.” • “I favor a tariff-based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, and which was the policy of the United States during most of our nation’s history.” Federal Reserve: • “I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.” • “No system of ‘debt money’ should ever again be imposed on the people of the United States.” • “We will work to restore a debt free, interest free money system that works for the people of this country and not for the benefit of the international banking cartel.” • “A Chuck Baldwin Presidency would signal the end of the stranglehold that the modern day moneychangers have over our economy and provide the opportunity for a rebirth of the American dream. National Defense: • “We will have a national defense that is second to none, with armed forces that serve only under our flag, whose mission is to defend these United States of America.”

• “The goal of the U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of these United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.” • “I will always give our troops my full support and will make it the highest priority of my administration to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained, well-equipped and well-led.” • “As President I will never deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.” • “In a Baldwin Administration, the armed forces of the United States will always serve under the flag of the United States and the mission of our armed forces will always be to provide for the common defense for these United States of America.” The vast majority of the information I have found on Candidate Baldwin has shown him to be a true constitutional patriot. He shows a conviction to the founding principles of limited self government, non-interventionist position on foreign affairs, and a belief in the JudeoChristian ethic that has made this country so great. I will not tell you who you should vote for, that decision must be made by each American citizen. It is the responsibility of every American to be active in the affairs of government, to know the state of the Union and the issues that confront the American people. Once you have researched the issues and the candidates, you must weigh them against your own beliefs, knowledge, and convictions and choose which candidate you believe supports your position. Do not be swayed by the talking heads telling you that you must vote for either Democrat or Republican parties or you are wasting your vote. The only wasted vote is the one cast in ignorance, for the person casting it is doing so as if it was a lottery he hopes to win, and when we look at the odds, it is not in our favor. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America. You can contact Mr. LeMieux via his website at www.constitutiondenied.com.

President Barr?
What It Means For
Bob Barr is the 2008 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States. From 1995 to 2003, he represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives, serving as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. He now practices law with the Law Offices of Edwin Marger and runs a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies LLC, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with offices in the Washington, D.C. area. Barr works to help preserve the fundamental right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

From 2003 to 2008, Barr occupied the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union. Since 1997, he has served as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association. Bob is also a member of The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security, and he served from 2003 to 2005 as a member of a project at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University addressing matters of privacy and security. In fact, recognizing Bob Barr’s leadership in privacy matters, New York Times columnist William Safire has called him “Mr. Privacy.” Barr has appeared on virtually every major cable and network television program dealing with public policy matters, and has served as a contributor for CNN. He has written a regular column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, hosted a nationally-syndicated weekly radio show, and served as Contributing Editor for The American Spectator. Barr’s writings appear in numerous academic, local, regional, national and international publications. He is the author of “The Meaning of Is, The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton” published by Stroud & Hall. He is a member of the Board of Advisors for the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy. Barr has served as an adjunct professor at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia, and serves as a national officer for Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity. Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia (1986-90) and served as President of Southeastern Legal Foundation (1990-91). He worked for the CIA from 1971-78. Barr is a speaker with the All American Speakers Bureau (www.allamericanspeakers.com). He has traveled widely and spoken to audiences across America and internationally, and has served as an official member of the U.S. delegation at several major United Nations conferences. Libertarians address four main issues as the backbone of its platform: Big Government • Perhaps Barr’s best claim to fame — and one he shares with Republican candidate John McCain — is his position on Big Government and Big Spending. He is a staunch advocate for limiting government to its smallest functional size. As Barr puts it, “Government spending at all levels is out of control.” While earmarks are an outrageous abuse of taxpayer’s money and account for a very small percentage of federal spending, total government spending (state, local and federal) has increased over the past decade from $2.9 trillion to an astonishing $5.1 trillion in 2008. The $3.1 trillion federal budget submitted by President Bush for next year was greater than the combined spending of the federal government, all 50 states, and over 87,000 local governments in 1998. Barr advocates cutting spending, which would allow America to implement real tax reform.

“Our goal should be to reduce both the tax burden on Americans and the intrusion in their lives resulting from IRS enforcement of the income tax. One of the best approaches would be to adopt some form of a consumption tax, like a national sales tax, replacing the Internal Revenue Service and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes,” Barr stated recently. He also wants to eliminate the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment, which authorizes Congress to levy an income tax. Without doing so, there would be an ever-present danger that a future Congress would attempt to bring back the income tax on top of any other alternative to the income tax. Maximize Individual Liberty & Restore the Constitution • The United States was created for the purpose of securing the liberties of its people. The colonists fled oppressive old world governments. The nation’s founders drafted the Constitution to sharply limit the federal government’s powers. The horrors perpetrated by the many collectivist tyrannies of the 20th Century demonstrate that the danger of government — any government — violating individual liberty is greater today than when America was founded. Unfortunately, in recent years government at all levels has shown growing disrespect for the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. The sustained governmental attack on the sanctity of the rights of the individual, including their right to be secure in their privacy and property, has created a moral and Constitutional crisis. America’s elected officials at all levels must renew their respect for the law and work to protect the rights of individuals. The place to start is by restoring the writ of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful detention and stands at the core of individual liberty. Article 1 of the Constitution provides that this right shall not be suspended without clear and necessary cause, such as during an invasion. In passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress, pushed by President George W. Bush, effectively ended this protection within America. The Constitutional protections of habeas corpus should not be sacrificed so easily. Finally, an increasingly intrusive Nanny State is hovering over our nation, meddling in the lives of its citizens. New restrictions, often rushed through legislatures and regulatory agencies with little consideration or thought, seek to control ever more aspects of people’s lives. Government limits individual actions and choices from the way in which we educate our children to the food that we eat, from the type of light bulbs that illuminate our living rooms to the benefits that we receive for working. It is time to trust individuals to make their own choices and decisions. At the core of libertarianism is a trust in and respect for the personal choices of every individual. All Americans should be free to decide what is best for themselves and their families. At the same time, they must bear personal responsibility
www.republicmagazine.com

for the consequences of the decisions that they make, whether those decisions prove to be good or bad. Secure the Borders • The current platform of the Libertarian Party paints a bright and accurate picture regarding the issue of immigration: “Currently, our borders are not open, closed, or secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens to the detriment of those who would legally enter the U.S. to work productively and by increasing the burden on taxpayers. Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while, at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to control even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity. Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer. Restoring National Defense • For far too long, and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored. Our national defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world’s police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary — not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation. The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of preemptive warfare. BUT CAN HE WIN? The Barr campaign knows that it is making life tougher for McCain, not for Obama. The fiery former Republican representative from Georgia has some Republicans worried that he will play spoiler in a tight presidential contest. Bob Barr’s Libertarian Party bid for the White House is a long shot, but political ana-

lysts say he may be able to exploit the unease some diehard conservatives still feel about John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting. “Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008,” said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain’s 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year’s contest. Consumer advocate Nader is the third-party candidate many Democrats blame for helping George W. Bush narrowly win in 2000. The Libertarian Party hasn’t cracked one percent of the national popular vote in a presidential race, but it is on the ballot in 30 states. Get ready for a Barr Bomb! The Barr Bomb is an idea borrowed from the Republican presidential campaign of Ron Paul, a bonafide hero for many Libertarians and from whom Barr hopes to siphon votes and cash. Ron Paul’s backers helped the Texas congressman raise millions in a single day with the “Ron Paul Money Bomb.” The idea is to harness the power of the Internet, which Paul’s supporters are exceptionally adept at, and raise tons of money online in a single day. The goal is two-fold: raise cash and raise awareness with a big number. After entering the House of Representatives in 1995, Barr acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of Congress. It was Barr who in 1996 wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, which said states didn’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. That Act is currently under assault in Congress. It was Barr who protested when he learned the military allowed soldiers to practice Wicca. A former federal prosecutor, a firm social conservative, and a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, Barr doesn’t fit most people’s image of a civil libertarian. But in his eight years in Congress (he failed to win re-election in 2002), Barr was one of Washington’s loudest critics of the federal government’s abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and opposing Bill Clinton’s efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases. Since leaving Congress, Barr has taken an advisory post with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and started writing a column for Atlanta’s alternative weekly, Creative Loafing — neither ordinarily a haven for Republicans. While many on the right have fallen behind the Bush administration even as it betrays their purported principles, Barr represents another set of conservatives’ growing discomfort with the administration’s erosion of individual liberty. But from this writers’ perspective, if you seek a candidate who will best represent the Libertarian point of view, Ron Paul’s the man to stand with. If his name appears on my ballot, he’ll get my vote.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY...
he other day I was talking with a friend about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We discussed how these documents are more than just the musings of a bunch of guys wearing funny pants. These documents are the embodiment of ideas which elevate the very nature of man. Man (the species not the gender) is of divine creation; and by that creation, he is endowed with certain “unalienable rights” which are not derived from any government. Therefore, they cannot be removed by any government.
When I joined the military I took an oath in which I swore to protect and defend the Constitution. Each elected official, from the President down, swears a similar oath. I wondered how some of our current presidential candidates viewed the values of the Constitution. This election season one candidate for the office of President, from the Green Party, is Cynthia McKinney. I offer the following comparative analysis on Congresswoman McKinney relative to her positions on the founding documents. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which gives the basis for breaking away from England and establishes the ground work for our nations’ beliefs, it reads in part: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The very first enumerated right is the right to life. How does Ms. McKinney stand on right to life issues? • In 1996 she voted yes to provide Medicaid funding to pay for abortions. • In 1998 and 1999 she voted yes for even more federal funds for abortion • In 2000 she voted yes to make funds available to female inmates for abortion • In 2006 she voted no on informing women of the pain involved in the abortion procedure. Among other things, the First Amendment deals with religious freedom. In particular it states that Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion or pass laws which prohibit the free exercise thereof. Ms. McKinney, however, has voted to remove that decision from the states by voting against resolutions which would give the states the right to display the Ten Commandments, if they so desired. Of course, she sees those same Ten Commandments every day when she goes to work, as they adorn the walls of congress. She also voted against a bill that “limits the government’s ability to intrude into the religious practices of Americans.” The Second Amendment, deemed an individual right by the Supreme Court, prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Ms. McKinney, however, voted against protecting firearm manufacturers from suits against their products which are misused by others. This would be similar to suing the car manufactures for deaths caused by drunk drivers; but this is how she voted. Ms. McKinney also voted against repealing the 1995 assault weapon ban. She has shown that she is an advocate for criminals and not for the honest citizen wanting to protect their family’s lives. The Third Amendment deals with quartering of soldiers in homes without consent. As this issue has not come up for congressional vote, it does have merit in how she has voted on military issues and the defense of the country. Her voting record here is consistent and appalling. Since 1995 she has consistently voted against any military defense funding. As commander in chief, I wonder how she would expect to operate the military forces without a budget. The Fourth Amendment, which deals with property rights and privacy, states that people should be secure in their homes and property. Ms. McKinney, however, does not believe this. She has voted consistently against any individual protection of property rights, including voting against a bill that would prohibit the use of government funds to take property from citizens for use “of generating tax revenue or personal financial gain of private enterprise.” It is obvious that she believes all property is the governments, and they will take what they want. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments deal with the rights of the accused. Ms. McKinney has nearly always voted in favor of the criminal. She voted for mandatory life imprisonment versus the death penalty. She voted against making it illegal to harm an unborn child, however, she apparently feels its okay to kill them by abortion. The Seventh Amendment deals with trial by jury and common law. Although there is little to no record relating directly to this amendment, she did vote against limiting frivolous law suits. She voted against protecting fast food restaurants against suits for making people fat. It would appear she does not believe in personal accountability. A big issue for me is the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people. Throughout Ms. McKinney’s long legislative career, she has voted continuously to expand the federal government beyond the enumerated powers as stated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. She has voted to over-ride the states on abortion issues. She has voted for the endangered species act, which is clearly beyond the scope of the federal government and is, therefore, reserved for the states. She has consistently voted to enlarge the size and scope of government. She has supported the expansion of government involvement in education, and she has voted against any measures which give parents options to remove their children from public education. She has voted against energy policies which would allow drilling within the United States, and has thus aided in the current oil crises (again, expanding government power to areas that were not enumerated). On other issues: • She voted against the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. • She voted against an act which would have allowed expedited access to the federal courts for “rights and privileges” cases. • She voted against giving authority to Homeland Security to detain dangerous aliens, the removal of deportable criminal aliens, or to combat alien gang crime.

T

28

Republic Magazine • Issue 8

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

www.republicmagazine.com

& THE CONSTITUTION
• She voted against earmarking reform within the House of Representatives. • She voted against securing the borders and ports of the United States. • She voted against off shore energy exploration. • She voted against a program to explore and develop oil and gas resources in Alaska. • And voted for increasing appropriations for federal agencies. (HR 5672) • She voted against the permanent estate tax relief act. • She voted against “Declaring That the United States Will Prevail in the Global War on Terror, the Struggle to Protect Freedom From the Terrorist Adversary.” It is quite interesting to me that a person whose voting record so sharply contrasts and opposes the Constitution and Declaration of Independence assisted in the drafting the Manifesto for the Reconstruction Party Activists claiming the following: • We Want Freedom Now! • We Want Full Employment Now! • We Want Reparations Now! • We Want Resources for Human Needs Now! • We Want to Stop the War at Home Now! • We Want an End to the War on Drugs Now! • We Want to End Prisons for Profit Now! • We Want an Environmental Protection Policy that Works Now! • We Want an End to Militarism Now! • We Want Peace Now! On January 26, 2008, Rep. McKinney helped draft the Reconstruction Party Manifesto which states: “freedom includes the rights to education, health care, housing, living wages, and freedom from racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, gentrification, and police terror.” Although I think all people should have equal access to things such as education and health care, the “right” is the property of the individual and not a requirement, or power, of the government. If a person has a right to something, that does not place a responsibility on another person to provide it. Having the government take from one party (taxes) to give to another party to fulfill their “right,” that right changes to a privilege. Because the power “to give” also denotes the power “to withhold,” it becomes a privilege not a right. In a free society, the government should provide protection against loss of liberty; it should not be the grantor of liberty. Freedom from any “ism” or phobia automatically denotes having control over those who would harbor such positions. The greater the control a government has over the populace, the less freedom that populace has. In essence the position of the Reconstruction Party (and therefore Ms. McKinney) is that freedom is only for those who believe as they do, and everyone else is misguided. I would also like to point out a dichotomy in the Reconstruction Party Manifesto in that they call for “peace now,” and they also want to be a “global community peace partner.” At the same, time they want all soldiers abroad to be returned home. The reality is, however, that there are some very evil people in this world who would commit nations to war, oppress their citizens, and ravage their nation’s bounty for their own selfish reasons. In order to bring peace, one must be willing to stop evil, even if it is by the use of force. Part of the protectionism demanded by the Manifesto is to stop funding intelligence. If we remember our recent history, prior actionable intelligence is exactly what was needed to protect our nation from the terrorist attack on 9/11. With the expansion of radical Islam around the world, do we really think that blinding ourselves to what is going on in the world is the right thing to do? The Manifesto goes on to state: “We want the definition of national security to include the general wellbeing of U.S. citizens and residents.” Notice that they want to tie “national security” not only to the wellbeing of citizens but also to residents. What about illegal residents? Based on her voting record, we must assume she wishes to protect them, as well. So according to this Manifesto, our national security would include illegal aliens as part of our national security. From researching Ms. McKinney’s voting record, her statements of record, videos, and writings, I have come to understand the following: • She opposes the Patriot Act and the war • Wants a smaller armed force and is against recruiters on college campuses • She is against a border fence and wants to eliminate visas for skilled workers • She favors increased and progressive taxation, as well as wealth redistribution • She wants to end oil exploration/refining, and favors the Kyoto Accord • She is against parental choice for schooling children and is opposed to vouchers • She favors federal funding for health coverage • She opposes gun ownership and supports suing manufacturers of firearms when their product is misused by others • She opposes the death penalty because she believes it is race & class based • She supports gay adoptions • She is an avid supporter of abortion on demand • She is strongly in favor of affirmative action at colleges to force minority entrance, even if the candidate is less qualified • She supports reparations for slavery With the preceding in mind there is no doubt that Ms. McKinney does not follow the Constitution; and it appears to me that she does not understand the meaning of personal liberty and freedom. She easily rivals Barack Obama as one of the most hard-left liberals in Congress today. Her stance on the issues would align her more with a socialist society than a free society.

Who will control the new President?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Since the beginning of recorded history, some form of control has always been exerted by secret societies, clandestine fraternities, and exclusive groups. So in essence, nothing has really changed… or has it?
Our country’s origins were constructed and debated in the halls of the Masonic lodges and back-alley meeting places. These associations were created for the good of the people, although some might argue that point. Today’s back alley secret clubs and orders have a much more sinister agenda which was born out of corruption, manipulation, greed and control. You might think you know someone… until you look closer at the company one keeps. Our “mainstream media” candidates are members of, and associate with other members of, these clandestine organizations. It is important to know who they are and what they really stand for. It has been said that you are a product of your environment and the company you keep. To understand who will be playing the role of puppet master, dictating every action of the presidential marionette we must examine the associations of our ordained leaders. It is recommended that you Google the below terms to understand not whom, but what the sleeping masses are electing and how they came to hold their power. We draw no conclusions other than, those that control the media are the marketing arm of these sinister, liberty-destroying groups.

John McCain - CFR ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ADVISORS: Henry Kissinger - CFR, TC, B. Colin Powell - CFR, B. Alexander Haig - CFR. James Woolsey - CFR, Brent Scowcroft - CFR, B. "Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain" The Washington Post (March 15, 2008) with a major fundraising events in London. LONG STANDING CONNECTIONS: McCain’s late father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a top figure in the organized crime power network surrounding one Kemper Marley, who acted as the front man in Arizona for the Bronfman family—key players in the Lansky crime syndicate, popularly though inaccurately referred to as “the Mafia”—who used Marley to control both major political parties in that state. The Bronfman family has long been allied with the Rothschilds as among the leading billionaire patrons of Israel and the global Zionist movement, so much so that Edgar Bronfman, head of the dynasty, was, for many years head of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), which is now lorded over by his son Matthew, who is chairman of the WJC’s governing board. Eight years ago, when McCain first

30

Republic Magazine • Issue 8

Subscribe Online or Call 1-866-437-6570

www.republicmagazine.com

ran for president, Edgar Bronfman was a contributor to his campaign. And at the time McCain included among his closest advisors the ubiquitous William Kristol of the stridently pro-Israel neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, whose owner, media baron Rupert Murdoch, rose to wealth and power through the sponsorship of the Rothschild and Bronfman families. Kristol has attended the secretive Bilderberg meetings that are sponsored jointly on an annual basis by the Rothschild family in partnership with their American confreres in the Rockefeller family. So the McCainBronfman-Rothschild connection is intimate on multiple levels and explains much about McCain’s long-standing tendency to be an almost feverish advocate for Israel’s interests. IMMIGRATION: he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy). SOCIAL SECURITY: he voted to give your social security money to illegal immigrants. TAXES: he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (but still campaigns as a lifelong tax-cutter). FIRST AMENDMENT: he wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that was declared to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 1st Amendment (co-sponsored by ultra-liberal Democrat Russ Feingold). SECOND AMENDMENT: he was called the 'worst 2nd amendment candidate' by the president of the NRA.

million. A major fundraiser for Obama is William Ayers, former Weather Underground honcho who also sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama and is a professor at the University of Chicago. Ayers and Dohrn are known to have held at least one fundraiser for Barack Obama in their Chicago home. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. The Establishment Elite have had control of the United States government through their members in positions of influence at least since Council on Foreign Relations founding member Edward Mandell House was President Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor and “alter ego.” Given the apparent positions of the advisors to the present candidates, the people should expect no change of the country’s direction toward a North American Union, economic chaos, collapse of the Dollar, greater control of the people, destruction of the Constitution and the continued “threat of terrorism” as the excuse to initiate martial law, the loss of liberty, and perpetual wars of aggression in violation of International Law. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: The Harold Pratt House, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 434-9800 THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION: 1156 Fifteenth Street NW Washington, DC, 20005 Tel. (202) 467-5410 email: contactus@trilateral.org ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– For the news beind the news, subscribe to The Free Press - 12 issues for $25 P Box 2303, Kerrville, Texas 78029. .O. Request sample copy - email: freepres@ktc.com

Barack Hussein Obama •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ADVISORS: Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, B, TC. Sarah Sewall - CFR. Susan Rice - CFR, TC. Joseph Cirincione - CFR Lawrence Korb - CFR General Merrill McPaek CFR Dennis Ross - CFR, TC. Obama fundraiser in London sponsored by Elizabeth Murdock, sister of Media Mogul Rupert Murdock, owner of Fox News, The New York Post and Weekly Standard Newspapers. LONG STANDING CONNECTIONS: George Soros - CFR, B, major contributor and fund raiser Jay Rockefeller - CFR, TC or should we say John D. Rockefeller 4th, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has endorsed Obama in the presidential race. Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman who's scheduled to go on trial for corruption in Illinois, and who was a major fundraiser for Obama, hosted fundraising events for Obama in his home and was on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee which collected $14
www.republicmagazine.com

Republic Magazine 08

Description

www.republicmagazine.com. Share this issue with others to wake them up about who is really controlling America and Barack Obama, John McCain: Has the Straight Talk Express Been De-railed?, Barack O...

www.republicmagazine.com. Share this issue with others to wake them up about who is really controlling America and Barack Obama, John McCain: Has the Straight Talk Express Been De-railed?, Barack Obama Vs. the US Constitution, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and an update on his run for President, Ralph Nader: Justice Over Power, Meet Chuck Baldwin, President Barr?â€”What It Means For America, How Cynthia McKinney stacks up to the Constitution, Frank McEnulty candidate profile, Understanding The Electoral College, Ron Paul Candidates Nationwide, Who Will Control the Next President?, 60 Second Activism, and more…